Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/672/2018

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Prime City Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

07 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	672 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	29.11.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	07.08.2019

 

 

 

 

Satnam Singh son of Sh.Santokh Singh, aged about 69 years, r/o H.No.475/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Sahara Prime City Limited, JMD Pacific Square, 1^st Floor, Near 32 Mile Stone, Sector 15, Part-II, NH-8, Gurugram 122001, Haryana, through its Managing Director.

 

2]  Sahara City Homes Marketing and Sales Corporation, Command Office, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow 226024 through its Managing Director.

 

3]  Sahara India Parivar, SCO No.1110-1111, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

Argued By: Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Subhash Chand, Adv. for OPs

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant, a senior citizen, booked a One BR Type-A flat in the year 2004 in the project of OPs-Sahara City Homes, to be developed by Sahara Prime City Limited in Chandgiarh, for his personal use & occupation (Ann.C-1). It is averred that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,27,210/- to the OPs on diffident dates vide receipts (Ann.C-2 to C-9) against its total consideration cost of Rs.13 lacs.  It is also averred that at the time of booking of the flat, the OPs assured the complainant that the possession of the flat will be delivered to him by 2007-2008.  However, the Opposite Parties instead of giving possession, issued a letter dated 9.5.2011 to the complainant informing him about the option of transferring the amount to any other existing project of Sahara City Homes (Ann.C-10).  It is submitted that after waiting for long, the complainant ultimately sought refund of the amount of Rs.1,27,210/- from the OPs by sending legal notice dated 11.10.2018 (Ann.C-11), but the OPs neither refunded the amount nor offered the possession of the flat.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant was informed about the status of the project from time to time.  The complainant has also been informed about the reasons for delay which were beyond the control of OPs.  It is stated that the complainant was duly informed about the Force Majeure clause while executing the Apartment Buyers Agreement.  It is submitted that the delay that has occurred has been caused due to circumstances beyond the control of OPs and the same cannot be attributed to the Opposite Parties. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant booked One Bed-Room  Type-A, living apartment/unit in Sahara City Homes project at Chandigarh on 20.12.2004 and made the following payments:-

 

Amount	Date of Payment	Receipt
Rs.1,00,000/-	20.12.2004	Ann.C-3
Rs.27,210/-	23.11.2005	Ann.C-4

 

7]       The Opposite Parties in their reply admitted to have received Rs.1,27,210/- from the complainant and stated in their letter dated 9.5.2011 that though they have acquired 200 acres of agricultural land for Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh and got the Change of Land Use (CLU) Order No.18/52/2002-1HG-2/9238, dated 27.9.2005 and Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 16.11.2006, but expressed their inability to develop and complete the project due to unreasonable demand of Rs.15.9 Lac per acre towards the External Development Charges by the Government and consequent litigation arising thereto.

 

8]       The Opposite Parties offered the complainant for allotment in any other project of Sahara City Homes or in the alternative to refund the entire amount with simple interest @8% per annum thereon (Ann.C-10), in case of option for cancellation of booking.

 

9]       The Opposite Parties have indulged into litigation over the terms & conditions regarding payment of External Development Charges to the State Government Authorities for which the ordinary citizens, who have invested money with intent to get a simple unit of residence, could not be made to suffer.  It is the responsibility of the developer itself to sort out the procedural requirements as applicable thereto.  The Opposite Parties after receiving of money in the year 2004 from the complainant virtually did nothing at site to develop the project.  The Opposite Parties definitely have utilized the amount of the complainant for their commercial purposes and might have earned a lot thereof.  The Opposite Parties should have suo-motto returned the money to the complainant with interest if they are so serious, rather they chose to file Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and slept over the matter waiting for the outcome of the litigation without any eagerness to pay back the money to the complainant/beneficiary.  There is prima facie clear unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties in failing to meet out their commitments as agreed to at the time of receiving of booking amount from the complainant. 

 

10]      In view of the peculiar facts, as put forth in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to pay back to the complainant Rs.1,27,210/- with interest @12% per annum from the respective date of deposits (i.e. on Rs.1,00,000/- w.e.f. 20.12.2004 & on Rs.27,210/- w.e.f. 23.11.2005) till realisation.  The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to face penal proceedings as envisaged under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

          Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules.

Announced

7^th August, 2019                                                           

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER